9 comments:

Awesome Orson Welles link. Loved it. Answers one of the biggest Hollywood questions: how the hell does one make such a profoundly awesome movie - at age 25! - and then all but disappear?

When Ebert passed recently, NPR played a clip that asked about his favorite movie scene, and Ebert chose Mr. Bernstein's classic reflection on memory and nostalgia from Citizen Kane. A great pick, one of about 20 or so unforgettable moments from Kane, a movie almost passe because so many people, from yesterday, loved it so much.

But that lunch interview! Like a My Dinner With Andre from hell. A perfect illustration of that research out of Harvard/U of M that it doesn't really matter how capable you are, what works in the world is how you get along with others.

Old Orson was the best at his craft, but just about the worst at getting along with others.

OK, his career was obviously a mess, but "all but disappear" is far too strong -- Lady From Shanghai and Touch of Evil are classics, and I'm a big fan of his Othello and Macbeth. (For some reason I've never seen "Ambersons" -- really should get around to it).

Plus it's worth mentioning that you definitely can't take "disappear" literally; he was extremely visible as an actor and fairly visible as a celebrity, for most of several decades.

Heh, you're right of course, Jonathan, I chalk my loose verbiage up to the perils of stream of consciousness writing, especially for those like me whose fingers move faster than their brain. (I also caught that misrepresentation; when I reread the post I considered that Welles' post-Kane career would have been a tremendous accomplishment for 99%+ of the folks who go to Hollywood seeking their dream).

Still find that lunch conversation fascinating. Thought a bit about this today, and considered a general model of the following: precocious film genius (which is itself off-putting), layering on top an off-putting personality; as a result it seems as though something like Welles' career is what you'd come up with.

CSH -- Eh, I'm sort of nitpicking. Of course there's stuff to be explained by personality here. I mean, I like Othello, but it's not hard to see that it would have been better had he had real financing and all.

The Welles tapes: Biskind edited a book of them to be officially published next month. They were lunch conversations between younger filmmaker Henry Jaglom and Welles, which Jaglom taped secretly--something that the book glosses over. I'd hesitate to make judgments based on this one that Biskind posts--it starts the book and was obviously chosen because it's controversial. I'm reading the advance copy now. But as others who knew him say, Welles took contrarian and contradictory positions in conversation just for their entertainment value. There's an unrecorded conversation quoted in the preface that provides a far different view of Welles. He was large in all senses; a man of contradictions and/or fine distinctions and turbulent complexities.

David Roberts is in error on several points and he should read the NYT once in a while. His article has so much bad or missing information, but his belief that nuclear reactors are all about the big is surprising.